German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

HAMBURG - German authorities said this week they have approved an
application from Swiss agribusiness group Syngenta AG to start
Germany's first trials of genetically-modified (GM) wheat.

But on Tuesday some 25 Greenpeace activists sowed organic wheat seed
on the test site, aimed at ruining trials as it will be impossible to
tell the difference between GMO and conventional wheat, said
Greenpeace spokesman Henning Strodthoff.

A spokesman for Germany's state owned Robert Koch scientific
institute, responsible for approving the safety of GM crop trials in
the country, said this week approval for trials this year on the 400
metre site had been given.

The country forbids commercial production of GM crops but permits
research plantings.

Syngenta had applied for permission for trail plantings of wheat
resistant to the fungus fusarium in the eastern state of Thuringia.
About 75 square metres would actually have had GM seeds.

"It does seem that the test area may not be usable," said Peter
Hefner, a spokesman for Syngenta in Germany. "There is a time limit to
plantings because of the wheat's biology."

"The approval process is also extremely complex and we cannot simply
ignore it to react to this changed situation." He added: "We have gone
through the approval process and answered all objections about safety.
The application was approved but trials cannot go forward because an
apparent legal act has occurred."

"This raises questions about how we can undertake scientific research
in Germany. It appears undertaking such research in Germany will be
problematic."

He said Syngenta is studying the legality of the protest and reserves
its right to take legal action.

Greenpeace's Strodthoff said the organisation did not regard its
protest as illegal.
"At the time of the planting this was just normal farmland and no
approval for GM trials had been given," he said.

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
German GM wheat trials approved but site sabotaged

HAMBURG - German authorities said this week they have approved an
application from Swiss agribusiness group Syngenta AG to start
Germany's first trials of genetically-modified (GM) wheat.

But on Tuesday some 25 Greenpeace activists sowed organic wheat seed
on the test site, aimed at ruining trials as it will be impossible to
tell the difference between GMO and conventional wheat, said
Greenpeace spokesman Henning Strodthoff.

I love it, if it is impossible to tell the difference between GMO and
conventional wheats, what is the risk posed by GMO when it is in the food
chain

sounds like Henning Strodthoff has benefited from a liberal arts education

Jim Webster

I love it, if it is impossible to tell the difference between GMO and
conventional wheats, what is the risk posed by GMO when it is in the food
chain

It may look the same (which is the point of the sowing), but is the
GMO wheat safe?

regards
Marcus

wrote in message
...

I love it, if it is impossible to tell the difference between GMO and
conventional wheats, what is the risk posed by GMO when it is in the food
chain

It may look the same (which is the point of the sowing), but is the
GMO wheat safe?

Is any wheat safe?

Gordon

wrote in message
...

I love it, if it is impossible to tell the difference between GMO and
conventional wheats, what is the risk posed by GMO when it is in the food
chain

It may look the same (which is the point of the sowing), but is the
GMO wheat safe?


no, it just shows the stupidity of Greenpeace activists.

come on, work it out for yourself.

What is the difference between this GM wheat and conventional wheat? What do
the added genes do?

Jim Webster
regards
Marcus

What is the difference between this GM wheat and conventional wheat? What do
the added genes do?

For RR wheat, it means that Roundup can be sprayed on the wheat. This
means that there will be more glyphosate residue on the food/feed when
it is consumed.

The UK government increased the allowed residue by 200 times,
otherwise RR crops could not go ahead (see below).

The safety of the RR gene inserted has not been proven, as safety
tests have never been carried out. Instead, the UK government relies
on "assessment" of data provided by the manufacturer, which is not
based on testing.

regards
Marcus



Publication Date: September 21, 1999

Pesticide safety limit raised by 200 times 'to suit GM industry'
DAILY MAIL
CAMPAIGN/GENETIC FOOD WATCH
Daily Mail

THE limits on pesticide residues allowed in soya have been
increased 200-fold to help the GM industry, according to one
of the country's leading food safety experts.

Malcolm Kane, who has just taken early retirement as head of
food safety at Sainsbury's, warned that higher levels of pesticide
residues could appear in a range of foods from breakfast cereals to
biscuits.

He raised concerns that although the toxin levels are low, there may
be dangers associated with long-term consumption.

The claims were rejected by the Government's GM spin unit but are
bound to fuel hostility to the tainted technology.

The fact that the warning comes from such a respected source is
highly embarrassing for the Government and biotech firms.

Previously, UK and European rules stated that residues of the
pesticide glyphosate left on a crop of soya beans should not be higher
than 0.1 parts per million.

But according to Mr Kane, the Government has increased this figure by
200 times to 20 parts per million specifically to smooth the path of
GM soya into the national diet.

The soya has been modified to withstand spraying by glyphosate which
is sold by the giant U.S. biotech firm [ Monsanto ] under the brand
name Roundup.

This means it can be sprayed more heavily without any of the soya
plants being harmed. But one negative result could be that higher
residues of the chemical are left on the plant when it is harvested.

Mr Kane believes that rather than force the industry and farmers to
meet the existing safety levels, officials have instead relaxed the
rules to ensure GM crops remain legal.

While soya is sprayed with glyphosate, other crops, specifically
maize or corn, have been manipulated to contain their own
insecticides. These are designed to kill off pests which attack the
plants so leading to bigger crops, but Mr Kane raises the possibility
that these pesticides will also find their way into human food. A
major loophole in the regulatory system means there is no way of
monitoring or policing levels of pesticide which
are effectively injected into plants through GM technology.

Mr Kane argues that the development of crops which are herbicide-
resistant
and pesticide-resistant was a major mistake by the biotech industry
because
these do not offer any benefits to consumer.

He believes that a better handling of the technology with an emphasis
on
the production of foods which are higher in important vitamins or
other
chemicals which promote a more healthy lifestyle could have produced
a much
more positive reception.

'One does not need to be an activist or overtly anti-GM to point out
that
herbicide-resistant crops come at the price of containing significant
chemical residues of the active chemical in the commercial
weedkiller,'
said Mr Kane. 'Conventional food crops will have no such residues.'
He
added: 'Consumers are understandably concerned about chemical
residues in
the food supply, and it is the responsibility of food industry
professionals
to protect and defend their requirements.

Undoubtedly, GM offers longer-term benefits in food quality and
nutrition.
However, the two most significant GM food developments currently
being
exploited, herbicide-resistance and insect-resistance, offer no
consumer
benefits.' A spokesman for the Government's GM spin unit said that
the
residue level had been changed in 1997, after GM soya was approved in
Europe.

'The change was made because of a change in farming practice for all
soya,
both conventional and GM, it was not done to suit the GM industry,'
said
the spokesman.

While in the past the crops had been sprayed early in the growing
season,
farmers had now decided to spray them before harvest to speed up the
drying
process, she said.

However, Mr Kane, who now runs his own food safety con-sultancy,
Cambridge
Food Control, described this explanation as a red herring.

'This whole debate has been dogged by misinformation,' he said.

'There is absolutely no good reason for raising the residue limit on
soya
other that to satisfy the GM companies.' Friends of the Earth biotech
expert
Adrian Bebb said glyphosate was a suspected 'gender bender', adding:
'It is
extremely long lasting in the food chain and has been implicated in
changing
hormone levels in humans and reducing sperm counts in men.'

wrote in message
...

What is the difference between this GM wheat and conventional wheat? What
do
the added genes do?

For RR wheat, it means that Roundup can be sprayed on the wheat. This
means that there will be more glyphosate residue on the food/feed when
it is consumed.

exactly, spot on, 10 out of 10

so the first they they do is spray the crop with roundup, the organic wheat
dies, the RR wheat continues

and "But on Tuesday some 25 Greenpeace activists sowed organic wheat seed
on the test site, aimed at ruining trials as it will be impossible to
tell the difference between GMO and conventional wheat, said
Greenpeace spokesman Henning Strodthoff."

just managed to prove how ignorant they actually are

where to they find these people

Jim Webster

Jim Webster writes

so the first they they do is spray the crop with roundup, the organic wheat
dies, the RR wheat continues

Indeed. But hey jim, your knowledge of arable is like, zero.

and "But on Tuesday some 25 Greenpeace activists sowed organic wheat seed
on the test site, aimed at ruining trials as it will be impossible to
tell the difference between GMO and conventional wheat, said
Greenpeace spokesman Henning Strodthoff."

just managed to prove how ignorant they actually are

Mindblowingly so.

where do they find these people

I doubt you should expect activist to have a clue about what they are on
about.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:00:50 +0100, Jim Webster wrote:

so the first they they do is spray the crop with roundup, the organic
wheat dies, the RR wheat continues

RR wheat in a ... Syngenta! trial ... Hello?

Mike



and "But on Tuesday some 25 Greenpeace activists sowed organic wheat
seed on the test site, aimed at ruining trials as it will be impossible
to tell the difference between GMO and conventional wheat, said
Greenpeace spokesman Henning Strodthoff."

just managed to prove how ignorant they actually are

where to they find these people

Jim Webster

"Michael Percy" wrote in message
s.com...
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:00:50 +0100, Jim Webster wrote:

so the first they they do is spray the crop with roundup, the organic
wheat dies, the RR wheat continues

RR wheat in a ... Syngenta! trial ... Hello?

Mike

I merely quote from the source of all knowledge, Marcus

Jim Webster


and "But on Tuesday some 25 Greenpeace activists sowed organic wheat
seed on the test site, aimed at ruining trials as it will be impossible
to tell the difference between GMO and conventional wheat, said
Greenpeace spokesman Henning Strodthoff."

just managed to prove how ignorant they actually are

where to they find these people

Jim Webster

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"Michael Percy" wrote in message
s.com...
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:00:50 +0100, Jim Webster wrote:

so the first they they do is spray the crop with roundup, the organic
wheat dies, the RR wheat continues

RR wheat in a ... Syngenta! trial ... Hello?

Mike

I merely quote from the source of all knowledge, Marcus


I don't know if the wheat is RR wheat or not.

All the players in GM crops license their technology. The deal won't work if
they don't. In China Monsanto gave China license to the BT gene to get the
right to sell BT cotton there. Monsanto was so much more successful with
their cotton that China has barred foreign investment in their bio
technology industry early this year.

Monsanto's seed was more expensive than Chinese's BT cotton but farmers
bought the best seed they could get and it wasn't Chinese.

This year Monsanto has a better BT protien in their cotton than the first
generation. It won't make me much difference but the guys in the south were
they have more worm problems will go for it. And they will probably use it
in Arizona and New Mexico to see if they can kill out the pink boll worm.

Gordon

Gordon

I would suspect that the Syngenta wheat did not contain RR technology. It
was a plant health/food safety trait.

"Gordon Couger" wrote in message
news:3ea664a3_2@newsfeed...

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"Michael Percy" wrote in message
s.com...
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:00:50 +0100, Jim Webster wrote:

so the first they they do is spray the crop with roundup, the
organic
wheat dies, the RR wheat continues

RR wheat in a ... Syngenta! trial ... Hello?

Mike

I merely quote from the source of all knowledge, Marcus


I don't know if the wheat is RR wheat or not.

All the players in GM crops license their technology. The deal won't work
if
they don't. In China Monsanto gave China license to the BT gene to get the
right to sell BT cotton there. Monsanto was so much more successful with
their cotton that China has barred foreign investment in their bio
technology industry early this year.

Monsanto's seed was more expensive than Chinese's BT cotton but farmers
bought the best seed they could get and it wasn't Chinese.

This year Monsanto has a better BT protien in their cotton than the first
generation. It won't make me much difference but the guys in the south
were
they have more worm problems will go for it. And they will probably use it
in Arizona and New Mexico to see if they can kill out the pink boll worm.

Gordon

Gordon

All they have to do is find another feild. Surely there are other plots that
have histories to meet the needs of the trial.

Gordon
"David Kendra" wrote in message
et...
I would suspect that the Syngenta wheat did not contain RR technology.
It
was a plant health/food safety trait.

"Gordon Couger" wrote in message
news:3ea664a3_2@newsfeed...

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"Michael Percy" wrote in message
s.com...
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:00:50 +0100, Jim Webster wrote:

so the first they they do is spray the crop with roundup, the
organic
wheat dies, the RR wheat continues

RR wheat in a ... Syngenta! trial ... Hello?

Mike

I merely quote from the source of all knowledge, Marcus


I don't know if the wheat is RR wheat or not.

All the players in GM crops license their technology. The deal won't
work
if
they don't. In China Monsanto gave China license to the BT gene to get
the
right to sell BT cotton there. Monsanto was so much more successful with
their cotton that China has barred foreign investment in their bio
technology industry early this year.

Monsanto's seed was more expensive than Chinese's BT cotton but farmers
bought the best seed they could get and it wasn't Chinese.

This year Monsanto has a better BT protien in their cotton than the
first
generation. It won't make me much difference but the guys in the south
were
they have more worm problems will go for it. And they will probably use
it
in Arizona and New Mexico to see if they can kill out the pink boll
worm.

Gordon

Gordon

On Wed, 23 Apr 2003 22:46:11 GMT, "David Kendra"
wrote:

I would suspect that the Syngenta wheat did not contain RR technology. It
was a plant health/food safety trait.

Hello David, long time no see. Of course you are right,
it is a Fusarium resistance trait.

Jim Webster and Gordon Couger has just managed to show that
they do not know what they f... they are talking about.

If they had interest in GM wheat they would've known that
Syngenta does not haven anything to whatsoever with RR wheat.
Indeed if they had done the bare minimum, to bother reading
the mail that initiated the thread they would have known this
is not about RR wheat.

You may not believe it but I have missed you.


"Gordon Couger" wrote in message
news:3ea664a3_2@newsfeed...

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"Michael Percy" wrote in message
s.com...
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:00:50 +0100, Jim Webster wrote:

so the first they they do is spray the crop with roundup, the
organic
wheat dies, the RR wheat continues

RR wheat in a ... Syngenta! trial ... Hello?

Mike

I merely quote from the source of all knowledge, Marcus


I don't know if the wheat is RR wheat or not.

All the players in GM crops license their technology. The deal won't work
if
they don't. In China Monsanto gave China license to the BT gene to get the
right to sell BT cotton there. Monsanto was so much more successful with
their cotton that China has barred foreign investment in their bio
technology industry early this year.

Monsanto's seed was more expensive than Chinese's BT cotton but farmers
bought the best seed they could get and it wasn't Chinese.

This year Monsanto has a better BT protien in their cotton than the first
generation. It won't make me much difference but the guys in the south
were
they have more worm problems will go for it. And they will probably use it
in Arizona and New Mexico to see if they can kill out the pink boll worm.

Gordon

Gordon

I suspect that seed supplies may be limited since I believe it was a "proof
of concept" evaluation.

"Gordon Couger" wrote in message
news:3ea72421_2@newsfeed...
All they have to do is find another feild. Surely there are other plots
that
have histories to meet the needs of the trial.

Gordon
"David Kendra" wrote in message
et...
I would suspect that the Syngenta wheat did not contain RR technology.
It
was a plant health/food safety trait.

"Gordon Couger" wrote in message
news:3ea664a3_2@newsfeed...

"Jim Webster" wrote in message
...

"Michael Percy" wrote in message
s.com...
On Tue, 22 Apr 2003 18:00:50 +0100, Jim Webster wrote:

so the first they they do is spray the crop with roundup, the
organic
wheat dies, the RR wheat continues

RR wheat in a ... Syngenta! trial ... Hello?

Mike

I merely quote from the source of all knowledge, Marcus


I don't know if the wheat is RR wheat or not.

All the players in GM crops license their technology. The deal won't
work
if
they don't. In China Monsanto gave China license to the BT gene to get
the
right to sell BT cotton there. Monsanto was so much more successful
with
their cotton that China has barred foreign investment in their bio
technology industry early this year.

Monsanto's seed was more expensive than Chinese's BT cotton but
farmers
bought the best seed they could get and it wasn't Chinese.

This year Monsanto has a better BT protien in their cotton than the
first
generation. It won't make me much difference but the guys in the south
were
they have more worm problems will go for it. And they will probably
use
it
in Arizona and New Mexico to see if they can kill out the pink boll
worm.

Gordon

Gordon